Looking for a better carry around lens...

[AndrewCCM]

Save up and get a used (or part of kit) 24-105L F4 IS.

Perfect walk around lens IMO.

[hotshot38]

Another choice is for a good all around utility lens is the 18-200mm IS for about $600....covers a wide range. It just isn't 'fast', but then again, I'm shooting in mostly bright sunlight.

If I'm not shooting something special, then that is the lens that is on my backup body.

[luis_relampago]

I found the 28-135 very soft. I had one when I bought my 40D and it came as a kit lens. I was very disappointed I tested it for a few days and then I sold it. If you have some money to spend my advice is to save a little more and get a 24-105 f4L IS or the 24-70 2.8L both are very nice glass.

[jblaschke]

Originally Posted by luis_relampago

I found the 28-135 very soft. I had one when I bought my 40D and it came as a kit lens. I was very disappointed I tested it for a few days and then I sold it.

There are apparently some soft 28-135s out there in the wild. Mine's not one of them. Most users of this lens are very happy with it--it's a great focal length for a walk-around, and since they come as the xxD kit lens, there's always a bunch available "like new" for great savings on the secondary market. $250-275 isn't unreasonable to get this one for. It's my primary lens on my XTi. Excellent consumer walk-around glass.

That said, The Wife recently got a 50D. Didn't like the 18-55 IS it came with, so she commandeered my 28-135. Which spurred some serious lens shopping, I can assure you. After much research, we got a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for her. It arrived last week and the IQ has been superb. Praise for this lens online--both in forums and on review sites--has been practically universal. I have to agree. It's still early, but initial results have been very promising with this one. It's one of the absolute best <$400 deals out there. Plus, Tamron offers a 6-year warranty, which is pretty darn nice as well.

[zerovision]

A friend has the Xsi and the 28-135is and she is very happy with using just that lens for everything she does. I is probably the best for your budget. If you want to look at more options and stay in your budget, you might look at a few Sigma lenses. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 which, if I remember correctly, was right at the top of your budget. All the L glass is $1k or more new and most of the L glass is $800 and up used.

[kenw]

more ditto: the 28-135IS is great for the applications that I use it in, but is not a universally perfect lens. with a FoV equivalent of 44-200mm, it is a bit long on a crop body. The IS helps only when the subject is still, cars and motorcycles sometimes aren't always so cooperative.

That being said, for my train shots it is very appropriate and I use it for 95%+ of them. But hardly ever for landscape, macro, low light, etc. where my other lenses outperform it.

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by clbryant1981

I don't know how much you're willing to go over 400 for an "all in one" lens, which is what sounds like you want or need, but Tamron has a 18mm-270mm with vibration control, it runs around 600 and is a great lens.

I'll second that as well. I have the original 18-250 for my Pentax (stabilization in the body) and it's a great travel/walk around lens. In fact, I just published my first covershot and it was taken with that lens. It's a very capable lens. The 18-270 supposedly performs even better.

[Donb10]

If you want to stay in the same focal range take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. If you don't need something that wide look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Both of these will give you good results for your dollar.

Go to the SLR Lens gallery at look at some of the photos posted for both lens. I had a Canon 28-135 f/3.5- 5.6 IS and it is a good lens for outdoors. Mine served me well but I don't care for a lens with a variable aperture range. Both of the above Tamrons have a f/2.8 aperture through out their focal range and offer better low light ability.

[SecretAgent]

Originally Posted by Donb10

If you want to stay in the same focal range take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. If you don't need something that wide look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Both of these will give you good results for your dollar.

Go to the SLR Lens gallery at look at some of the photos posted for both lens. I had a Canon 28-135 f/3.5- 5.6 IS and it is a good lens for outdoors. Mine served me well but I don't care for a lens with a variable aperture range. Both of the above Tamrons have a f/2.8 aperture through out their focal range and offer better low light ability.

excellent recommendations! a much better lens choice than the other's mentioned.

[bht-kevin]

Something I haven't seen pointed out, is both the 18-55 IS kit lens and the 50mm F1.8 are pretty damn good when used with proper technique. I am honestly not sure you can buy a sharper lens for under $200 than the 50mm F1.8.

For my best answer, I would say to post up a couple of sample photos and just say what you arent happy with. Are you looking for something faster, more focal length, etc... I just don't think you are going to be happy buying something under $400 if IQ is the only thing you are interested in. Without knowing anything else, i could only recommend the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron or maybe a used copy of the 17-40L

From 18-55 IS Kit

Click to see large


Click to see large


Click to see large


Charlie Hustle


I recently got the 17-55 F2.8 IS and its for sure sharper, but it was also like 6-7x the price.

bht-kevin added 9 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by zerovision

All the L glass is $1k or more new and most of the L glass is $800 and up used.

Not true. New prices off BH :)

Lens new/used
17-40L 669.95 /550
70-200 F4L 579.95/450-500
200mm F2.8 II $700/550

With that said, MOST are above $1k new.